Where do I start with this one? Actually, let’s start with the official statement from Rolling Stone themselves:

[Contributing Editor Janet Reitman] spent the last two months interviewing dozens of sources – childhood and high school friends, teachers, neighbors and law enforcement agents, many of whom spoke for the first time about the case – to deliver a riveting and heartbreaking account of how a charming kid with a bright future became a monster.

But f*ck this. Putting him on the cover of Rolling Stone was a bad move. I get that he’s the subject of the biggest feature in this month’s issue so it’s only natural that he get a cover. However, Rolling Stone is a music magazine reserved mostly for rock stars and celebrities to get the covers (with the exception of a Charles Manson cover 40 years ago). So putting him on the cover carries a certain connotation that’s insensitive to every single victim of the Boston bombing; that Tsarnaev is now deserving of some sort of celebrity status.

This is trolling of the highest order. It’s a money grab. And it’s tap dancing on Martin Richard’s grave. I don’t want to trash the article before I’ve read it, but the cover line turns my stomach. Poor Tsarnaev’s family failed him and he “fell” into radical Islam. I’m sick of articles apologizing for domestic *cough*White*cough* terrorists by making borderline excuses to why they did something totally horrible. There’s a thin line between exposing and excusing and I don’t know if Rolling Stone will toe it with its new cover boy.

Even the actual photo on the cover reeks of “cool.” There isn’t anything to distinguish Tsarnaev from any celebrated star who’s been on the cover before him. He’s got a smug look on his face, a little cool shirt and his hair style. The magazine might as well come with a thumbtack for every would-be terrorist to put on his or her wall.

But beyond that, here’s what really bothers me at this very moment — and I understand that these are two unrelated events but let me say it: Trayvon Martin just got posthumously convicted of assault and was told by a court in Florida that he deserved to die 48 hours before one half of the terrorist duo that killed an eight-year-old is on the f*cking cover of Rolling Stone.

Join The Discussion

Yeah I’m interested in reading the story, but a cover spread? Dude looks like a rock star now. Bad move Rolling Stone, bad move. At least show the guy in orange or getting arrested or some shit. A before and after wouldn’t be bad either. Fuck.

And it sucks because Rolling Stone is one of the few culturally relevant places where there’s journalism and meaningful coverage. They should be doing shitty best guitarists lists, not have this asshole on the cover.

I don’t see how it matters that he’s on the cover of Rolling Stone. I mean, yeah, I get that people associate Rolling Stone with a younger audience (or cooler audience, or whatever), but this dude was already on the cover of every major newspaper on earth plus his face and name were all over the television news for weeks. It’s not as though someone is going to pick up Rolling Stone and go “holy fuck, I’ve never heard of this guy before, he must be fucking cool.” simply by looking at the cover. If the article paints him as some sort of hero then, yeah, the Stone is way wrong, but I doubt that’s the case.
Everyone knows this guy as the Boston Bomber, and nobody in North America at least, is glorifying that sort of thing.

Yeah, get over it! It was all Trayvon’s fault that Zimmerman saw him walking while black, followed him around, accosted him, and then pulled out a gun and shot him dead for the crime of existing. Get over it!

So there had been eight neighborhood burglaries recently in this particular neighborhood and Zimmerman part of the neighborhood watch. He noticed someone acting strangely and went to investigate. Martin sees that someone is following him and calls his brilliant friend who tells him that a honky faggot rapist probably wants to have sex with him and then go to his house and fuck his father and baby brother. Trayvon, being high as a kite, is understandably paranoid by this and turns around to confront Zimmerman. He throws the first punch and proceeds to repeatedly ram the back of Zimmerman’s head in the concrete. Not to try to kill him, of course, but just in self defense.

No one except your ignorant ass and NBC (who is now getting sued for it by Zimmerman) brought up race in this case. That is wholly your own assumption. In fact, Zimmerman’s mother is Peruvian. Thus the reason he looks Hispanic instead of white. Oh, and did I mention that Zimmerman’s grandparents on his mother’s side were black?

Let me say that again! ZIMMERMAN’S GRANDPARENTS ON HIS MOTHER’S SIDE WERE BLACK!

But I’m sure he was just another self-loathing, mixed race vigilante, right? Probably still hated black people?

Wow. There was another post on the Zimmerman trial that I thought was a low point for Uproxx. Never mind. You’ve sunk lower and I just didn’t notice it.

“Trayvon Martin just got posthumously convicted of assault and was told by a court in Florida that he deserved to die.” I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more ignorant statement written by anyone that actually writes above the comment section. That’s the new low for Uproxx. You really must be raking in the page views to be willing to write something that intentionally inflammatory and flat out wrong.

but it’s not wrong. It’s true. A kid is dead because of an over zealous racist who profiled trayvon. His acquittal is tantamount to saying trayvon is guilty and responsible for his own death. And anyone who says he is is ignorant at best or racist at worst.

“A kid is dead because of an over zealous racist who profiled trayvon.”

That’d be true except for the complete lack of evidence that Zimmerman was a racist. Why can’t we all just accept the fact that he was a cockbag wannabe cop and stop making up shit that fits our own particular narrative? Is that too much to ask?

Analrapist, he… is a racist. He saw a young black kid in a hoodie and based on that, and ONLY THAT, he called the cops on him. Then decided to play Rambo and go after him (after being told NOT TO.) After Trayvon got scared he confronted THE STRANGER FOLLOWING HIM. They ended up fighting, and Zimmerman killed him. ALL of this happened because Zimmerman saw a young black man in a hoodie and assumed he was a criminal.

Is Zimmerman a card carrying member of the KKK? No. Does he start yelling at a black person because their very existence offends him? Probably not. But he’s still a racist.

@Froggie
Then we’ve taken the definition of racism to a whole new level. Being part of the neighborhood watch and seeing someone who looked out of place has never been based on racism, it’s been based on circumstance. To say that the guy is a racist based on your perception of his decision making is entirely your opinion. You don’t know what’s in the man’s heart. None of us do. But the evidence that we have doesn’t show him to be the racist that some members of the media have made him out to be.

I agree with part of what you’re saying. The media has made him out to be much worse than what he is. It makes things simpler for the “narrative.” This guy is 100% evil and this kid is 100% good. For example: I hate that the media is using pictures of Trayvon when he’s 12 rather than when he was 17. I think that’s ridiculous.

But I think you might be taking the definition of “looked out of place” to a new level. He’s a dude walking home. Zimmerman profiled him based on his looks and decided he was a criminal whether or not he was consciously doing it.

And let’s just forgive Zimmerman for a moment that he thought Trayvon “looked out of place.” He called the cops. They were on the way. They told him to stay put and not follow. He did so anyway, then an innocent young man gets killed. You still think there’s nothing wrong with what he did?

There’s nothing LEGALLY wrong with what he did. Common sense-wise? Yeah, he’s a fucking idiot. But that isn’t a crime in this instance. That’s why the prosecution’s decision to charge him with murder two was so out of left field. They could have likely gotten a conviction of a much lesser offense by proving that his actions directly lead to TM’s death, but they were out for blood and they overplayed their fairly weak hand.

As to the notion of what “looking out of place” means it’s entirely subjective. I live out in the country. But before that I lived in the suburbs. One morning I was on my way to work, taking a route that I usually didn’t take and I saw a guy walking. Didn’t recognize him but right at the moment that I saw him something told me that the situation was off. Couldn’t place it. White guy, mostly white neighborhood, walking in the cold, drizzly morning with muddy boots and jeans. Nothing too odd on the surface, but it just didn’t feel right. Two hours later I hear the news report that a woman was raped maybe 1/4 mile from where I saw him. The thing that separated where he was and where the rape took place was a wooded area that during the spring (when this occurred) was usually pretty muddy. I told the police about it and his description matched the victim’s account but I knew none of that when I saw him. All I had was an instinct that told me something was wrong. So was that some sort of unconscious bias or was I just thin-slicing? That sort of stuff makes it harder for me to just pin the racist tag on an asswipe like Zimmerman and move on, you know?

indieguy – If you honestly think that the jury’s two choices were “Say Trayvon is guilty of assault and deserved to die” or “Find Zimmerman guilty” you really do need to look up the phrases “presumption of innocence” and “self defence”.

I guess. There are portions I just disagree with that seem reasonably thought out. I’m still not sure a nice picture above a headline essentially calling you a Radical Islamist and Monster is even over the line.

As for Zimmerman, Martin and David D. they’re part of this story by definition. The author writes the story and gets to choose what goes in it. Anyone with any shame at all would either amend or expound on that point so that it’s not just one of the dumbest things ever written.

first of all, that you guys think he look’s like a rockstar is your problem. and monsters generally don’t look like monsters, so that’s quite an ignorant thing to say. secondly, altough it was something terrible, doesn’t mean this was it was the end of the world. I don’t even jave to say: ”look at the middle-east, where 3 deaths is a low death toll for 1 day”. look at for example gun-deaths in your own country. people just seem to pick a tragedy and then make that the worst thing ever happend, it’s sick. fuck you america

You’re right. This is the only thing we’ve ever cared about. Ever. We’ve never focused on other tragedies or atrocities in the history of the world. Your comment reads like “Fuck the problems in your country! The problems in other countries are more important!” Dude, it’s all terrible. Quit being a one-upper.

Maybe everyone, including the blogger, can halt with the “f*ck this person or that person” or simple “this glorifies that” rhetoric and just take a moment. Is it possible that it might be more revelatory to take RS’s article and all we know about this perpetrator, and cross examine it with the post on Filmdrunk ([goo.gl]) about the documentary “Act of Killing”? Here is a film whose entire point is the notion that there are no monsters, there are no good guys or bad guys, there are only human beings who sometimes make terrifying choices for complex reasons. You can throw a slew of shit in my direction like a monkey if you like, and I’m not on either side of the RS issue to be honest, but it’s really goddamn exhausting when these conclusions are the only ones to be drawn from putting someone on a magazine cover.

Mancini, generally, appears to be capable of dealing with some degree of nuance. I disagree with a lot of this post, mainly because I don’t believe a nice picture on the cover of Rolling Stone means that you are glorifying a person. I’m particularly sure of that when the headline identifies that same person as a monster. It kind of seems to be the equivalent of saying a poster of your picture glorifies you because usually posters are for revered people. That may be true, but if the words “Child Molester” are written under your picture in big, block letters, I don’t think you’d feel glorified.

We all make mistakes writing, especially when we get emotional. But the line on Zimmerman and Martin is so misinformed and an example of the worst sort stereotypes of blogging. Yahoo leaves that sort of verbal dipshittery for the comments section.

I find it sadly ironic that the author of this article chose to refer to Tsarnaev as an “alleged” criminal (which, is accurate, because he hasn’t been proven guilty as yet in court) but then goes on to assail the verdict in the Zimmerman trial where Zimmerman was found not-guilty.
Either you’re okay with the rule of law and due process or you aren’t. Pick one and stick with it.

I dunno, ever since Tiger Beat put Kim Jong Un on the cover, and did that “United Flight 93 Hijackers in swimsuits” centerfold, I’ve been a little turned off by the magazine. The “Hot Pics Of Muammar Gaddafi Unwinding After A Long Day Of War Crimes And Voter Supression By Grabbing A Mountain Dew And Lounging By The Pool” cover story back in May 2011 was a pretty fun read, though.

I get it ,you’re pissed off.But, in context,how can an asshole that looks like this decide to murder people ? I think that is the point of the cover,terroists don’t look like terrorists !
And regardless of what you think, Rolling Stone will go on whether you buy it or not.
And to DAC in the above post…..FUCK YOU FROM WHERE EVER YOU COME FROM !

Also, I refuse to look up his name, but where was the Dark Knight Rises kid’s cover? Or the Newtown shooting cover? I don’t care how nuanced the story may be, all this does is make him look like a literal rock star.

Write up a story, sure. Mention it on the cover. But don’t give him the cover. In this screwed up, reality TV society where everyone is looking for their 15 minutes, this only reinforces using ugly means to get time in the spotlight.

Rolling Stone lost me as far as non-music coverage goes ever since they gave that Hunter S. Thompson wannabe Matt Taibbi a regular job. Their political section is a white liberal elite wankfest. The try to front an anti-establishment attitude even though they put Justin Bieber, The Jonas Brothers and Snooki on their covers. I’m sure the Tsarnaev piece is interesting, but there’s no way I’m gonna play their little game and money a up a couple of bucks or even a pageview because of this sensationalist cash grab. What a fucking rag.

This kind of cover, regardless of what’s written in the article is exactly what every school shooter, mass murderer, or terrorist is looking for. I remember news organizations not wanting to say the Sandy Hook shooter’s name on air because they didn’t want to reward him with the kind of publicity mass murderers usually seek.

“Even the actual photo on the cover reeks of “cool.” There isn’t anything to distinguish Tsarnaev from any celebrated star who’s been on the cover before him. He’s got a smug look on his face, a little cool shirt and his hair style. The magazine might as well come with a thumbtack for every would-be terrorist to put on his or her wall.”

This is correct. I read this story over on HuffPo and many if not most of the comments were along the lines of “mememe there’s nothing wrong with it.” Sigh, man those people are braindead. This is exactly what terrorists and mass murderers and whatever name you want to use are working for.